Ideas and human perceptions (part 1)

Ideas and human perceptions (part 1)

so i watched this video

(Sorry that the subs are in spanish, couldn’t find an english version)

Before watching this video of the French Phisolofical worker Guilles Deleuze, my concept of idea and perception was completely platonic, wich mean, ideas are mere abstract concepts in were humans always try to found an pragmatic solution, in an Helenic theorem to found a truth that shall become law. our ideas will not be more than the interpretation of something that doesn’t exist, wich we’ve decided to give him an absolute reality, yet we limit ourselve to not cuestion its meaning.

Our ambient its really just a existencial plane without meaning, but as the founder of the existencialist currrent, Soren kierkegaard, would say, “life is a problem to be fixed, but a reality to face”. even when we try to deny meaning to something, we must understand that “thing” will affect us, even when we decide to think in him.

Humans being create symbols, create interpretations, manipulate our arounds. Ideas, could be said that they are not more than innovative interpretations of our ambient, using the scientific order, the mathematics interpretation of the things, trying to relate the numerical value to the hypothetical order of nature, even our arts, trying to give eternity to give humans situations emotions.

Guilles gave us the term “percept”, a word that i interpreted as the sentiments or emotions that the chronological or ambientals emits, either natural or human made.

From the anthropological perpective, this emotions are simply evolutive, like colours, our arounds will express to us an sentiment that warn us something dangerous, or something advantageous.

Part 2 next week

Is Anarchy isolationism?

Is Anarchy isolationism?

What is anarchy in the first place, the meaning, tough poses a relatively easy etymological meaning and root, meaning literally, “without rulers” from the Greek language.

Even tough that the popular belief is anarchy is the representation of a system in complete disorder and confusion, to be more exact, the absence of a system parse.

We must better use the ideological meaning of this word, and is the “a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy)

And it’s in fact a cute meaning that we all imagine at some point of our lives, the idea of a society in which men’s don’t respond to any authority, and all the rules of society is based in contractual morals base in the better good of the people. No men is better than the other, everyone know their place and don’t have to respond to anyone.

No corruption

No abuse of power

No greed,

Complete political and ethical freedom as long as it doesn’t hurt any peer.

Then, what is the problem?

The thing is that…

Men are not equal.

We may be equal in front of the law, but we have so many differences morally and willingly that the idea of the perfect society is impossible.

It doesn’t matter at all how much you try, when we have a group of people, all together, somebody is going to be better than the other, whether is strength, cleverness or mere luck, that guy will become an example to follow, and therefore, even without wanting to be, a leader, therefore, a government, and hence, the fall of the anarchist society.

There’s only a partial way to live the “no ruler” society, and that is isolationism, as you will not be able to lead or be leaded.

Let’s see a famous example, henry David Thoreau.

He secluded himself out of the grasp of society, and become more disappointed of the government actions in slavery and the war on Mexico, becoming an renown essay writer and activist for the civil rights movements, going far to try to help 2 African-American slaves to scape, a sin in that moment in time.

And even then, he was at grasp of the government, being more than one time arrested for not paying taxes.

To be an anarchist, it’s required a total independence, something difficult in a globalized world as today.